1 |
On 7/23/06, Hans-Werner Hilse <hilse@×××.de> wrote: |
2 |
> Hi, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:42:43 -0600 |
5 |
> "Trenton Adams" <trenton.d.adams@×××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > I proposed this awhile back, and got shot down. At the time, the |
8 |
> > arguments for using SVN for portage storage were pretty shallow, and |
9 |
> > someone was able to easily shoot them down. I believe I have come up |
10 |
> > with better reasoning for using SVN. Someone may still shoot them |
11 |
> > down, but hey, it's worth a try. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> #1: |
14 |
> You're aware that there's a CVS for portage, aren't you? I'm still not |
15 |
> quite sure if you are suggesting using SVN for the portage mirrors and |
16 |
> if you are suggesting that users also have a full SVN history on the |
17 |
> clients, too? |
18 |
|
19 |
No, not a full history, just a tag history. |
20 |
|
21 |
> |
22 |
> > PROBLEM 1 |
23 |
> > [...] |
24 |
> > PROBLEM 2 |
25 |
> > [...] |
26 |
> > PROBLEM 3 |
27 |
> > [...] |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Well, are those really problems at all? I mean, isn't it easy to |
30 |
> overcome them? Is it worth dedicating time and work into that svn thing? |
31 |
|
32 |
I'm not sure, is it? Is there scripts already out there to overcome |
33 |
the problems suggested? If there are, I would sure appreciate knowing |
34 |
about them. :) |
35 |
|
36 |
It could be a lack of my understanding how the portage downgrade |
37 |
process works. But if you downgrade a package, will it downgrade all |
38 |
the packages depending on that version as well? |
39 |
|
40 |
> |
41 |
> > POTENTIAL ISSUES |
42 |
> > Now, I'm not entirely sure of the performance implications of |
43 |
> > subversion for this purpose. So, that would definitely have to either |
44 |
> > be tested, or someone would have to talk with the subversion folks to |
45 |
> > know if it would be a problem for thousands of users to access |
46 |
> > subversion in readonly mode. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Well, of course! There's definately a reason to use rsync. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> > It would certainly be annoying for a |
51 |
> > developer to go "svn commit", and have to wait for half an hour |
52 |
> > because everyone else is updating their local copies. But, that could |
53 |
> > be solved by mirrors only getting updated once every day, at 12 |
54 |
> > midnight. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> Oh, yeah. Your midnight, my midnight? It would definately be annoying |
57 |
> to make a small glitch and have to wait >24hrs until the fix for that |
58 |
> gets promoted. The "problem" you mentioned that at some points there |
59 |
> are slightly errorneous ebuilds in portage or minor inconsistencies can |
60 |
> only be fixed by promoting updates fast. |
61 |
|
62 |
That's true, and I suppose that's not quite as good as what exists |
63 |
right now. But does gentoo really have less than 24 hour bug fix turn |
64 |
arounds? |
65 |
-- |
66 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |